Mozilla is ~83% funded by Google. That’s right- the maker of the dominant Chrome browser is mostly behind its own noteworthy “competitor”. When Google holds that much influence over Mozilla, I call it a false duopoly because consumers are duped into thinking the two are strongly competing with each other. In Mozilla’s effort to please Google and to a lesser extent the end users, it often gets caught pulling anti-user shenanigans. Users accept it because they see Firefox as the lesser of evils.

Even if it were a true duopoly, it would be insufficient anyway. For a tool that is so central to the UX of billions of people, there should be many more competitors.

public option

Every notable government has an online presence where they distribute information to the public. Yet they leave it to the public to come up with their own browser which may or may not be compatible with the public web service. In principle, if a government is going to distribute content to the public, they also have a duty to equip the public to be able to consume the content. Telling people to come up with their own private sector tools to reach the public sector is a bit off. It would be like telling citizens they can receive information about legislation that passes if they buy a private subscription to the Washington Post. The government should produce their own open source browser which adheres to open public standards and which all the gov websites are tested with.

I propose Italy

Italy is perhaps the only country in the world to have a “public money → public code” law, whereby any software development effort that is financed by the gov must be open source. So IMO Italy should develop a browser to be used to access websites of the Italian gov. Italy can save us from the false duopoly from Google.

  • Blackmist@feddit.ukEnglish
    3·
    1 year ago

    Gnome Web. Literally one Google search to find a browser using WebKit on Linux.

    But sure, pretend Italy of all people will build a new browser just for you.

    • debanqued@beehaw.orgOP
      1·
      1 year ago

      This misses the point. Governments are designing web services for Chrome. So you have two choices:

      • pawn yourself to Google and use Chrome; or
      • experiment with unsupported browsers, which even if they work you’re still limited to the window of standards Google decided was good for their business

      It’s a lousy idea. The gov should be supplying services that are wholly free of Google’s influence.

      • Blackmist@feddit.ukEnglish
        2·
        1 year ago

        Why does a government need to make their own browser to combat this?

        Just make sites to existing web standards that work in Chrome, Firefox and Safari. Even the UK government is capable of this.

        • debanqued@beehaw.orgOP
          1·
          1 year ago

          First of all choosing the subset of standards that Google chooses is a sovereignty problem. Gov services should not be constrained to what Google in the US decides to implement. Of the 3 browsers you mention, Chrome is subject to google snooping. Firefox is limited in Google’s influence as well. And Safari only serves Microsoft and Apple users officially.

          The gov need not produce a browser from scratch, but they need to officially support a non-controversial browser that is not tied to US tech giants.